R&D in a strategic delegation game

This paper studies how a separation of ownership and management affects firms' R&D and production decisions in Cournot quantity competition. It is found that when R&D spillovers are small, owners strategically direct their managers away from profit maximization towards sales. Consequently, managerial firms invest more in R&D and have higher output and lower prices compared to their entrepreneurial counterparts. On the other hand, when spillovers are large, owners ‘penalize’ managers for sales. In this case, managerial firms have lower R&D, lower output and higher prices. Nonetheless, managerial firms have lower profits than their entrepreneurial counterparts regardless of spillovers. This paper also examines the welfare effects of a separation of ownership and management. It is found that in terms of first-best social welfare, managerial firms are more (less) efficient than their entrepreneurial counterparts with low (high) spillovers. However, in terms of second-best social welfare, managerial firms are less efficient with all spillovers. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Rivalry Restraint as Equilibrium Behavior

Rivalry restraint has received a lot of attention as a theory of profits in recent research on business strategy. Its economic rationale is explained as the consequences of either exogenous or endogenous anticompetitive forces present in different industries. In this paper, we use a dynamic oligopolistic industry model and show that rivalry restraint emerges as equilibrium behavior among firm owners who delegate decisions to managers. In the corresponding two‐stage game, managers choose optimal production rates in a dynamic Cournot market and owners set incentives for managers, acting sequentially rational. Equilibrium incentives correspond to rivalry restraint, that is, managers are less aggressive in the product market with lower outputs and increasing profits for all firms in the industry.     

On the impact of managerial bonus systems on firm profit and market competition: the cases of pure profit,sales, market share and relative profits compared

By designing remuneration schemes based on a bonus rewarding specific firm‐level outcomes, the owners/shareholders of a firm can manipulate the behavior of their managers. In practice, different bonus anchors take center stage: some are profit‐based, others use sales as the key yardstick and still different ones focus on relative performance vis‐à‐vis a peer group. In this paper, we focus on the impact of remuneration schemes on firm‐level profitability. The profit effect is investigated for (all possible combinations of) four bonus systems using delegation games. In the context of a linear Cournot model for two or three firms, we model a two‐ or three‐stage decision structure where, in the first stage (or first two stages), an owner decides on the bonus system for his manager and where, in the final stage, the manager takes the daily output decision for her firm. It appears that the bonus system based on relative (profits) performance is superior throughout. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategic delegation in oligopolistic tournaments

This paper considers a two-stage game with two owners and two managers. At the first stage, the owners choose a linear combination of profits and sales as incentives for their managers. At the second stage, the two managers compete in an oligopolistic tournament against each other. The findings substantially differ from the results for Cournot or Bertrand oligopoly: There exist asymmetric equilibria where one owner puts a positive weight on sales and the other a negative one, although the structure of the game is completely symmetric. If the influence of noise vanishes, the owner of the more aggressive firm will even induce sales maximization to his manager in order to preempt his competitor. Received: 22 April 2004, Accepted: 25 December 2005 JEL Classification: L1, M2 I would like to thank the editor Semih Koray, two anonymous referees, Ulf Schiller, Dirk Sliwka, Gunter Steiner, and the participants of the Microeconomics Seminar of the Humboldt University at Berlin for very helpful comments. Financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), grant KR 2077/2-3 and SFB/TR 15 ("Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems"), is gratefully acknowledged.     

Profit maximizing communities and the theory of local public expenditure

This paper examines profit maximization as a normative criterion for communities in a large metropolitan area. We develop a Tiebout-like model of residential location, define the “profits” of a community, and show that profit maximization leads to the efficient provision of public services and optimal community size. Communities do not in general act as profit maximizers, however, because individual property owners may not all share in a community's profits. Two institutional reforms are therefore suggested that would alter the distribution of profits in a way that makes the self-interested actions of property owners consonant with community profit maximization.     

Relative performance as a strategic commitment mechanism

Can managers' personality traits be of use to profit maximizing firm owners? We investigate the case where managers have a variety of attitudes toward relative performance that are indexed by their type. We consider two stage games where profit maximizing owners select managers in the first stage, and these managers, knowing each other's types, compete in a duopoly game in the second stage. The equilibria of various types of competition are derived and comparisons are made to the standard case where managers are profit maximizers. We show that managers' types can be used as a strategic commitment device that can increase firm profits in certain environments. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Managerial delegation games and corporate social responsibility

In a duopoly in which firms universally engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, this paper shows that, in contrast to the main tenet of the received managerial delegation literature, if the CSR sensitivity is sufficiently high: (a) when both firms delegate output decisions to managers, at the equilibrium profit (resp. consumer welfare) is higher (resp. lower) than when firms are pure CSR; (b) in a managerial delegation game, asymmetric multiple subgame perfect Nash equilibria emerge in which one firm delegates and the rival does not. These results hold under both the “sales delegation” and “relative profits” manager's bonus schemes.     

Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship

Milton Friedman argued that the social responsibility of firms is to maximize profits. This paper examines this argument for the economic environment envisioned by Friedman in which citizens can personally give to social causes and can invest in profit‐maximizing firms and firms that give a portion of their profits to social causes. Citizens obtain social satisfaction from corporate social giving, but corporate giving may not be a perfect substitute for personal giving. The paper presents a theory of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and shows that CSR is costly when it is an imperfect substitute. When investors anticipate the CSR, shareholders do not bear its cost. Instead, the entrepreneurs who form the CSR firms bear the cost. Shareholders bear the cost of CSR only when it is a surprise, and it is to such surprises that Friedman objects. A social entrepreneur is willing to form a CSR firm at a financial loss because either doing so expands the opportunity sets of citizens in consumption‐social giving space or there is an entrepreneurial warm glow from forming the firm. Firms can also undertake strategic CSR activities that increase profits, and a social entrepreneur carries strategic CSR beyond profit maximization and market value maximization. The paper also examines the implications of taxes and the effect of the market for control for the sustainability of CSR.     

Welfare impacts of a non-profit firm in mixed commercial markets

Utilizing a model that allows for the welfare of the commercial NPO’s stakeholders directly in terms of their consumer surplus, and indirectly in terms of NPO profits, we explore the impact of changes in the NPO’s “social concern” for consumers on market efficiency. Three separate Cournot mixed market scenarios are analyzed: competition between the NPO and a private for-profit firm, competition between the NPO and a public firm, and a market scenario that includes all three firms. We find that the technical efficiency of the NPO vis-à-vis the profit maximizer is crucial in determining whether social welfare rises or falls as the NPO places more weight on their stakeholders’ surplus. In particular, if the NPO is less technically efficient than the profit maximizer or public firm, somewhat paradoxically social welfare may fall as the NPO shows a greater social concern for consumers. In other words, a movement away from pure profit maximizing behavior by a NPO may well be detrimental in these mixed commercial markets. We also show the additional sources of revenue available to a NPO may decrease the overall welfare in these mixed market situations.     

Delegation and strategic incentives for managers in contests

Owners usually want their managers to maximize profits. As the literature on strategic delegation has shown it may be beneficial to owners to put a positive weight on sales in the optimal linear incentive scheme for managers to make them behave more aggressively in the market. This paper shows that if the competition between the managers can be characterized as a contest, owners may induce their managers to maximize sales. Moreover, there is a first‐mover advantage for owners when choosing their incentive schemes. If delegation is endogenous the type of contest will determine whether all owners delegate their decisions to managers or not. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Bargaining over Managerial Contracts in Delegation Games: The Generalized Oligopolistic Case

The main purpose of this paper is to disclose the properties of the equilibrium outcomes in the differentiated‐products model with two stages: (i) owner‐shareholders negotiate managerial compensation with their managers that comprises their profits and sales (sales delegation) and (ii) they engage in their market competition. The other purpose of this paper is to study the differentiated goods model in which an owner bargains the managerial compensation with her/his manager that comprises her/his profit and her/his rival's profit (relative performance delegation). We further investigate the situation wherein the firm with sales delegation and the firm with the relative performance delegation coexist. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The strategic use of managerial incentives in a non‐profit firm mixed duopoly

A mixed duopoly setting is examined where a private non‐profit firm (NPO) competes with a private profit‐maximizer. The NPO's stakeholders select a contract for their managers. A novel NPO objective function is utilized which takes into account all the likely returns to the NPO's stakeholders (NPO profits and the surplus accruing to the NPO stakeholders) in such a commercial setting. In sub‐game perfect equilibria, it is shown that the NPO's managers generally will not be given the NPO's true objective to optimize. It is also shown that aggregate social welfare may increase or decrease due to this managerial contracting behavior or the use of NPO membership fees. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Corporate plant location under uncertainty: Divergence between the interests of ownership and management

This paper expands current knowledge of location decision-making under uncertainty by analyzing instances where the corporate goal of profit maximization diverges from the managerial decision-maker's goal of maximizing personal profit. With illustrations based on alternative decision-making criteria, the paper demonstrates that a corporate manager acting in his own self interest may select a plant site that does not maximize corporate profits. The trend for US corporations to select suburban locations, despite the cost advantages of older urban areas, is illustrative of this divergence between the objectives of ownership and management.     

Sustaining Competitive Advantage Through Corporate Environmental Performance

This research investigates the relationship between a firm's environmental efforts and the sustainability of its competitive advantage by analyzing the effects of change in firm environmental performance on the persistence of profitability growth. We find that environmental resources allow a firm with superior financial performance to sustain its competitive advantage, and also complement the efforts of a poorly performing firm to hasten recovery from inferior financial performance. Our findings further indicate that firms attain such positive effects through enhanced profit margins resulting from improved environmental performance. Additionally, we observe that a corporate strategy of improving environmental performance demonstrates management's responsibility to maximize the shareholder wealth of a well‐performing firm. The results provide valuable insights to align environmental activities towards developing unique resources for sustaining the competitive advantage. The study provides an empirical support for creating economic value by benefiting the environment. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment     

Discriminatory input pricing and strategic delegation

This paper examines how discriminatory input pricing by an upstream monopolist affects the incentives that owners of downstream duopolists offer their managers. Regardless of the mode of competition (quantity or price), owners of downstream firms induce their managers to be more profit‐oriented and to behave less aggressively when the monopolist is allowed to price‐discriminate than when he charges a uniform price. If the monopolist price‐discriminates, managerial downstream firms always earn more than owner‐managed profit‐maximizing firms. However, if the monopolist charges a uniform price, managerial downstream firms earn more than profit‐maximizing counterparts under price competition and earn less under quantity competition. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Safety margins versus profit maximization

Under uncertainty, firms risk bankruptcy. We ask, in symmetric duopoly with stochastic demand, what happens when one firm minimizes the probability of negative profits while the other maximizes expected profits. When fixed costs are small, a firm can reduce the likelihood of negative profits. However, under a large fixed cost, the chance of negative profits increases upon deviation from a profit‐maximizing strategy. In any event, if one firm adopts a safety‐first strategy, the other firm has higher profits and a better survival chance by maximizing expected profit. Finally, we compare a profit maximizing to a safety‐first strategy in relation to ownership and control in firms.     

Production theory,uncertain prices and investment portfolios

This paper examines the allocative decisions of a competitive firm where input and output prices are uncertain and where the capital asset pricing model prevails. The firm behaves much as a profit maximizer under certainty, except that certainty equivalent prices formally replace the known prices. These certainty equivalent prices are composed of the expected price, the covariance of the price with the market (a measure of systematic risk) and a measure of risk aversion in the economy. Both static and comparative static propositions emerge in a natural way as extensions of standard, competitive and profit maximizing behavior. In addition, the model contains both the certainty case and the risk-neutral case as limiting examples.     

Maintenance contracts for leased goods: their role in creating brand loyalty

Using a two‐period switching cost model, this paper compares rental profit with sales profit in a framework in which duopolists produce horizontally differentiated durable goods. Rental firms use maintenance contracts that stipulate that repeat customers pay a lower fine per unit of damage than do those customers who switch to a rival firm. In the sales regime, firms give loyal customers a discount on their second period prices. If switching costs are zero, sales profit equals rental profit. For positive and identical switching costs, either regime can dominate. As the exogenous rate of depreciation falls, rental profit exceeds sales profit. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The equivalence of supporting software delegation and sales delegation

This paper considers a duopoly market with horizontally differentiated system goods to examine system owners' behaviors under supporting software delegation, in which owners of system firms use varieties of supporting software, coupled with profit, to evaluate their managers' performance. Supporting software delegation seems to induce managers to act more aggressively in price competition than sales delegation does; however, we prove that if two systems are compatible and the varieties of supporting software are determined by hardware owners' overall expenditure amount on software, then supporting software delegation is equivalent to sales delegation. Owners of system firms induce their managers to act less aggressively in hardware price competition by offering contracts with a negative weight on varieties of supporting software under supporting software delegation. We find that stronger network externalities do not reverse system owners' contracting behaviors under supporting software delegation. Finally, it is worth mentioning that hardware technologies are static in this paper. In other words, dynamic changes such as hardware evolution are not considered in our analysis.     

Corporate social responsibility,durable‐goods and firm profitability

Utilizing a two‐period durable‐goods framework, we show that in uncommitted sales markets a firm may earn higher profits as it increases its level of corporate social responsibility (CSR). We find that this occurs even though CSR has no direct impact other than increasing the durable‐goods firm's manufacturing costs. We show that in sales markets, CSR may allow the firm to credibly commit itself to lower production in the future. This, in turn, can enhance their profits even though the CSR activities are costly and provide no direct demand or marketing benefit in our model. This is important because it provides another, hereto unexplored, strategic rationale for the willingness of profit‐maximizing firms to undertake costly CSR activities. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.